• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Women Priests.

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by sparow, Jan 10, 2021.

  1. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Anti-Democratic Monarchist

    +2,883
    New Zealand
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    So Junia was a presbyter. This is your claim?
     
  2. Gregorikos

    Gregorikos Ordinary Mystic

    914
    +720
    United States
    Pentecostal
    Married
    They would certainly reduce it, just from a pure statistical perspective. And they would be better advocates for the victims of rape and abuse. As it is now, when a girl is raped or abused by a male leader in church, she typically goes alone, to face a room full of men. She is immediately at a disadvantage, and her abusers at an advantage in that scenario. It ought not be.
     
  3. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,406
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I'll say as a grown mature woman that facing a panel of just men on intimate matters of pain is highly disadvantaging. My career is in sales negotiations at the C-Level on multi million dollar deals - most with men, so of all women I should have been more comfortable in that setting, but it was really just awful. I declined to participate in the 2nd round and told the pastor was free to speak on my behalf - without me there.

    I can't imagine a girl or even a young woman facing it.
     
  4. Albion

    Albion Factchecker

    +31,366
    United States
    Anglican
    Married
    Junia was not a presbyter. Junia was in a leadership position of some sort.

    We cannot translate that as meaning that, whatever that role was, it must certainly be as a presbyter.
     
  5. 1213

    1213 Disciple of Jesus

    +1,093
    Christian
    Single
    Before continuing I want to say, nothing of this should be taken to mean that I think women should not be appreciated, or that women are somehow less valuable. I think women seem to be generally different than men, but I don’t think it means they are then somehow less valuable. I think difference is not a problem and should not be a problem and all people don’t have to be the same to be appreciated and loved.

    And now, about the differences. There is actually a study about this subject, which indicates that women cause the Church to change.

    This article focuses on female clergy as potential agents of change in the Church. I argue that the adoption of female clergy is one of the main factors that cause the Church to change its practices, policies and theological orientation.
    Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change?

    Maybe it could be said it is not bad, but, if the goal would be to conserve something, women don’t seem to do that, according to that study, and therefore it would be mistake to place them on position where the goal would be to preserve. And if one wants to change things, it would be beneficial to choose women, which I think is intentionally happening.

    But, I think this is not necessary matter to be argued. It is in no way useful and you don’t have to agree with me in this. I just say that in my experience women more easily reject the teachings in the Bible. Women tend to think more about what other people think and feel, which is one reason why I think they more easily reject God. The teaching in the Bible can be offensive to some, and to not offend anyone, it is tempting to reject what was said and the truth, to not cause conflict, to please everyone.

    I don’t mean with this that women are not as valuable, or good, or shouldn’t be appreciated. This means they are different and I think difference is not bad thing. Not all people are good at the same things, for example, I can’t run as fast as some others, it does not mean that then I am not good at all, or that my life would have no value. People don’t have to be good in everything to be valuable, loved, appreciated. I think big mistake in modern world is that truth can’t be accepted and that all must be considered equally good in everything, even though they are not. People are different and it is ridiculous that equality people don’t seem to be able to accept that. Essentially they themselves think not all people can be appreciated, if they are not the same as everyone else.

    But, I would like to know, what scripture you mean?
     
  6. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Anti-Democratic Monarchist

    +2,883
    New Zealand
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    I asked a question in another thread about Churches which adopted female priests or pastors. Whether or not that tends to lead to liberalism. It's good to know that my suspicions are intuitively correct.

    Women cause a Church to be more liberal both politically and theologically. Just makes me think that women shouldn't be in the clergy even more so if the goal is to preserve what Christianity is, rather than change it according to modern liberal norms.
     
  7. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,406
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I appreciate your humble tone. I have also read that opinion recently while studying some CBMW type literature, which offered a much less humble tone than you did. So, thank you for that.

    However, your supposition isn't Scriptural, so I think it's dangerous to marginalize people based on an opinion like this. I could point out many exceptions to your suggestion, and could also provide a list of women that co-labored with Paul and he didn't have these concerns about them.
     
  8. Fervent

    Fervent Well-Known Member

    +851
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I'm speaking purely with regard to what the dress symbolizes. There is a ministerial authority that must remain associated with the office and not the occupier of the office that ministerial dress will convey. A standing-in-moses seat sort of authority.



    Yes, and it's far too easy to overstep from official authority to relational authority because of that necessary authority. Designating teachers, rather than trusting any willing to teach and observing their teaching, creates a class distinction



    Sort of, but not in the sense that they are today. The offices rotated and each city congregation designated how their offices were filled as a congregation. This was especially enforced through the likelihood of martyrdom for anyone occupying an office in most places.



    No, it's completely relevant because we can't compare modern worship with what happened in those house churches. You assume that someone presided and taught and all of that, but the data is rather thin. The pastoral letters are often challenged because they are argued to show a bit of ecclesiastical development that the data from the nascent church doesn't seem to hold up with.



    Because the handling of communal resources was the primary duty of NT elders. Timothy's role, for instance, was primarily centered on the distributions to widows. He was not specially charged with defending the faith, that charge goes to all Christians.



    It may be an incorrect inference, but it's a natural inference if there are holy rites reserved to a designated class. It implies that either through training or through natural dispositions there is something special about the one allowed to administer those rites.



    That's a terrible analogy because we're not "running" the church. Christ is responsible for the church, and Christ alone. Human structures of ordination are nothing more than a human institution which is exactly why they're so rife for abuse.

    I agree, but the changing roles has to be more than simply hypothetical or else it bleeds into a class distinction. A lot of the institutions are based on good impulses, such as desire to preserve the message, but such institutions are going to attract exactly the wrong sort and create political divisions within the body especially as the authority becomes more heavily vested. Of course none of this is black and white, there are good and necessary reasons for church authority but vesting such authority in individuals is a major hazard.
     
  9. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Anti-Democratic Monarchist

    +2,883
    New Zealand
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    There were plenty of women who helped plenty of men throughout all centuries of the Church. No one is denying them their place in helping and even leadership positions. What we deny is the idea that women can be pastors or priests.

    If I were to use the same sorts of arguments that liberals use to defend their position I would have to regard Saint Macrina as a presbyter because of her impact on the lives of her brothers. Or what about the deaconess Olympias whom John Chrysostom regarded as a friend and relied on for aid? Or what about the women who helped Saint Jerome and on whom he also relied? Should all these women be regarded as examples of female clergy despite them not being so?

    Men should rely on women for help. There's nothing wrong with that. A Church probably wouldn't function nearly as well without them.
     
  10. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,406
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    [STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]

    Earlier in this thread I showed a challenge in the 1 Tim 2:12 translation. Could you please comment on that? Post #56.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2021
  11. PloverWing

    PloverWing Episcopalian

    +3,383
    United States
    Anglican
    Married
    If you're parenting an infant, being maternal and being nocturnal kinda go together. :)
     
  12. Redwingfan9

    Redwingfan9 Well-Known Member

    +1,502
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    Your objection does not deal with the operative phrase, which bars women from teaching or having authority over a man in the church. That means they cannot preach and cannot hold a position of leadership in the church (ie they may not be elders or decons). I might even agree with your statement that the greek word means quiet rather than silence. In fact, we know that women have sung psalms as part of congregational singing from day 1 of the church, so clearly silence doesn't mean silent at all times.
     
  13. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,406
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi Redwing,

    Thank you for your cordial reply. :)

    For the sake of argument, assuming we both agree that Paul wrote a word better described as "peaceable", we can move to the next objection to the traditional translation, which is the word often translated as exercising authority, also in v. 12.

    The word Paul used in that verse that has been translated as "authority" is not found anywhere else in the Bible, and he only used it that once. He used a different word all the other times he talks about authority. Therefore, Biblical scholars have had to research other sources for comparative uses of the word, and their best estimation is that it means a violent overtaking, even with undertones of murderous actions. Of all of the translations, perhaps the KJV is the closest with "usurp", but it still seems to understate the scope of the behavior.

    Strongs defines it as:
    831 authentéō (from 846 /autós, "self" and entea, "arms, armor") – properly, to unilaterally take up arms, i.e. acting as an autocrat – literally, self-appointed (acting without submission).

    a. according to earlier usage, one who with his own hand kills either others or himself.

    b. in later Greek writings one who does a thing himself the author" (τῆς πράξεως, Polybius 23, 14, 2, etc.); one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, equivalent to αὐτοκράτωρ an absolute master; cf. Lobeck ad Phryn., p. 120 (also as above; cf. Winers Grammar, § 2, 1 c.)); to govern one, exercise dominion over one: τινς, 1 Timothy 2:12.​

    Would you agree that neither men OR women should grab onto or usurp authority in that manner?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2021
  14. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +289
    Protestant
    Single

    It is difficult, but at a superficial level not very important; but at a deeper level the enemy is up to mischief, making God more remote and irrelevant. If there is a sin it is the men who have sinned; if the women are there they need to do a good job lifting up Christ and not promoting women. The ship is sinking, it's every man and women for our selves, a different approach is required, we cannot depend on institutions.
     
  15. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +289
    Protestant
    Single

    We can bring this into topic if we transliterate the topic to "The magnitude of micro deceptions in the enemies attack".

    "Inspiration of the spirit", where does that come from? There is a verse, from Paul or Peter, I am not sure, "All scripture is inspired by God", but this is further qualified by, "the prophets of old did not make it up, they did not interpret it from scripture, but they received it directly from God". Now, how do we know this verse is not made up; by testing it against the OT, the two witnesses must agree. Paul's statements should be tested against the OT; first off Paul's statements on circumcision fail the test.

    Regarding slavery, the word in the Bible simply means employment, There is a place in the OT where God condemns the abduction of people for forced labour that I have come across recently.

    Paul is the prophet who testifies of Himself; that doesn't mean that he is not a servant of God, the beast of Revelation is a servant of God.
     
  16. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +289
    Protestant
    Single

    A better solution is that Priests have wives.
     
  17. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter

    +289
    Protestant
    Single
    Where we are today; the world is being turned upside down, people are calling evil good; now there is sin of which we repent and then there is casting the Law into the trash can which is an assault against God.
     
  18. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +16,421
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    This assumes that "authority" is the operative issue, and that's not always the case at all.

    I don't know how things are where you are, but where I am, this wouldn't even be legal under secular law. Here, anyone undertaking leadership roles must go through a screening, recruitment and training process; must have police and working with children checks, and must be duly authorised. I can't just let anyone willing teach. We've learned the hard way that that leaves us far to open to all sorts of abuses.

    I'm not convinced by this claim, but think it's fairly marginal to our discussion.

    I think you're confusing elders with deacons, there. It was deacons who were to focus on distributions to widows, so that the elders could focus on prayer and teaching.

    Then the onus is on us to make our teaching clearer that this is not so.

    But on a day-to-day level, humans on the ground have to make all kinds of decisions. The church needs to know that the people making key decisions are trustworthy and have agreed to operate within the church's limits and norms.

    Unless you're willing to put every decision through a group decision-making process (which is highly impractical), it's probably necessary, though.
     
  19. Fervent

    Fervent Well-Known Member

    +851
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    When it comes to class distinctions, authority is the issue.



    Teaching children requires secular checks and clearances, and given the pliability of the young it seems reasonable to rely on established teachers within the congregation, but that doesn't require ordination to a special function. If someone wants to come before the body and preach, though, there need be no barriers beyond the simple reproach of teaching incorrectly.



    Fair enough.



    No, its more a matter of recognizing the first official office of the church was the deacons established in Acts 6-7. Though making normative decisions based on the Jerusalem church alone is part of the issue, as it was rather unique in its structure among early churches.



    Perhaps, but if the practice itself is what is giving the false impression and there is no practical reason for the exclusivity it seems keeping the rites exclusive is the issue, rather than a failure to teach.





    Sure, and giving people operational decision making powers for oganizational purposes isn't really an issue. Secular administration duties don't bring about images of holiness in the way that exclusivity with sacred rites do. And the very idea that there is an order/class of ordained people who are allowed those sacred rites gives the air of special holiness for that group.


    Again, this isn't a matter of organizational functions as secular administration as much as it is the idea of having ordained people who are in-tune with Christ enough to be his exclusive voice on holy matters gives the appearance of class distinction, at the very least.
     
  20. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +16,421
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    But what I am trying to point out - as someone who actually wears a clerical collar, and makes day-by-day decisions about when and how it is appropriate to do so - is that the actual meanings conveyed and reasons for wearing it might have nothing to do with either authority or class distinctions.

    No. What I said in my previous post applies - by secular law - to those who teach adults as well. Anyone who exercises a leadership position, or position of authority or perceived authority in the church, is required to have such checks and clearances.

    Now it doesn't have to be ordination - after all, my church has a long-established practice of lay preachers - but it does require authorisation and licensing to that role.

    But there are practical reasons for having particular tasks assigned to particular roles. Again, we could quibble endlessly about the detail of this or that task, but for the sake of good order and governance it's not just a free-for-all.

    So would you then, be happy with a church whose structures remained unchanged except for allowing everyone (without exception?) to hear formal confessions and preside at the Eucharist? Do you really think that would a) work well, and b) solve the problems you raise? Because I don't. I know a good many people who would be a disaster as a confessor.

    But this is a straw man. This is not what ordination is. It is not how it is understood. And to attack the idea of orders on this basis is completely misplaced.
     
Loading...